Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DANILEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DANILEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  For Ruling no. 248-O of 9 June 2005 of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, see Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, § 57, ECHR 2015).

  In Chernenko and Others, faced with complaints about a multitude of restrictions on life prisoners" contacts with the outside world (affecting family visits, telephone calls and parcels, ibid., § 30), the Court, with a reference to the case of Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015), considered it appropriate to examine the alleged interference with the applicants" right to respect for their private and family life "from the standpoint of their ability to receive family visits; all other restrictions (lack of telephone communications and a limited number of parcels) being marginal factors that will only be taken into account for the assessment of the overall cumulative effect of the restrictions on the family visits" (see Chernenko and Others, cited above, §§ 38-40).

• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuous situation against which no domestic remedy is available, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the continuous situation (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 36732/97

  PISANO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  The Court is satisfied that both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention are met (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 42, 24 October 2002; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 96-103, ECHR 2007-I; and El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, §§ 29-34, 20 December 2007).

 
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 25525/03

  EL MAJJAOUI AND STICHTING TOUBA MOSKEE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  The Court is satisfied that both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention are met (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 42, 24 October 2002; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 96-103, ECHR 2007-I; and El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, §§ 29-34, 20 December 2007).
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 35090/09

  POLYAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  Article 8 of the Convention requires the State to assist prisoners as far as possible to create and sustain ties with people outside prison in order to promote prisoners" social rehabilitation (see Polyakova and Others v. Russia, nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, § 88, 7 March 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33729/18

  BADULESCU c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  43750/06 and 4 others, §§ 35-62, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the compatibility of the restriction on using Kurdish in telephone communications with the applicants" right to maintain meaningful contact with their families; and Badulescu v. Portugal, no. 33729/18, §§ 35-37, 20 October 2020, concerning the limitation of the duration of daily telephone calls; see also Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 45 and 66, ECHR 2000-X, concerning a special prison regime designed to cut links between prisoners and the criminal environment to which they belonged with special emphasis on restricting contact with family members, which allowed for one telephone call per month; and Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2), nos.
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  Since the general ban on telephone calls in normal circumstances, at issue in the present case, applied to him in both correctional colonies as a direct effect of the legislation, it gave rise to a continuous situation within the meaning of the Court's case-law (see Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, §§ 109-11, ECHR 2015, and Khoroshenko, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  HAGYÓ v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  It examined whether such restrictions were justified within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8. In doing so it had regard, inter alia, to security risks, the stage of proceedings and the accessibility of such other means of maintaining regular contact with prisoners" families as visits and written correspondence (see, for example, Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, §§ 69-72, ECHR 2003-II, and Baybasin v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13600/02, 6 October 2005, concerning, respectively, the monitoring of and ban on using Kurdish in telephone conversations in a maximum-security detention facility with special measures for preventing escape, in which it was possible to contact relatives by telephone twice a week; Ciszewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38668/97, 6 January 2004, concerning the monitoring of telephone calls in a detention facility for dangerous delinquents; Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010, concerning the cost of regular telephone calls which the applicant was allowed to make to his family; Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 75-90, 23 April 2013, concerning the applicant being denied unlimited telephone access to his child and contact with his common-law wife; Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24069/03

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  24069/03 and 3 others, §§ 155 and 163, 18 March 2014, concerning a regime for serving life imprisonment in a high-security prison, in which at some point telephone calls were authorised every fortnight).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  DAVISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  It examined whether such restrictions were justified within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8. In doing so it had regard, inter alia, to security risks, the stage of proceedings and the accessibility of such other means of maintaining regular contact with prisoners" families as visits and written correspondence (see, for example, Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, §§ 69-72, ECHR 2003-II, and Baybasin v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13600/02, 6 October 2005, concerning, respectively, the monitoring of and ban on using Kurdish in telephone conversations in a maximum-security detention facility with special measures for preventing escape, in which it was possible to contact relatives by telephone twice a week; Ciszewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38668/97, 6 January 2004, concerning the monitoring of telephone calls in a detention facility for dangerous delinquents; Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010, concerning the cost of regular telephone calls which the applicant was allowed to make to his family; Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 75-90, 23 April 2013, concerning the applicant being denied unlimited telephone access to his child and contact with his common-law wife; Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09

  H.P. v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

• EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 32439/19

  LEROY c. FRANCE

  En ce qui concerne les contacts des détenus avec leur famille et leurs avocats, la Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence pertinente (Khoroshenko c. Russie [GC], no 41418/04, §§ 116 à 126, CEDH 2015, Danilevich c. Russie, no 31469/08, §§ 45 à 50, 19 octobre 2021, en ce qui concerne en particulier l'usage du téléphone, Campbell c. Royaume-Uni, 25 mars 1992, §§ 45 à 47, série A no 233, en ce qui concerne les communications avec un avocat).
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 55659/14

  RUDYKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of any document or fact submitted by the Government to the contrary, the Court is not ready to accept their assertion that such practice at that colony was discontinued after 2016, that is after the second successful round of the domestic proceedings initiated by the applicant (compare and contrast with the situation in Danilevich v. Russia, no. 31469/08, §§ 76 and 78, 19 October 2021).
• EGMR - 23325/22 (anhängig)

  AMEEN v. PORTUGAL and 3 other applications

  Has the imposition of the high-security regime and further restrictions on the applicants constituted a breach of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities put disproportionate restrictions on the applicants' correspondence, including with their lawyer (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 140, ECHR 2009; Lebois v. Bulgaria, no. 67482/14, § 62, 19 October 2017; and Danilevich v. Russia, no. 31469/08, §§ 49-50, 19 October 2021), and by means of video surveillance, including in the visiting areas of the prison during their detention (see Piechowicz, cited above, § 239, and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, § 82, 2 July 2019)?.
• EGMR - 28702/23 (anhängig)

  BUSCH c. FRANCE et 1 autre affaire

  À la lumière de l'arrêt Danilevich c. Russie, no 31469/08 (19 octobre 2021), y-a-t-il eu violation du droit des requérants au respect de la vie familiale du fait des restrictions imposées sur leurs communications téléphoniques avec leurs familles ?.